European Voters Know What They Don't Want [Archive]

View Full Version : European Voters Know What They Don't Want

Skybird

06-12-09, 04:08 PM

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,629433,00.html

The reactions especially from SPD politicians in German to their party's long-lasting fall, is most revealing. there was a demand from within their faction that we should get a mandatory legal obligation to vote in elections, and not doing so should become punished.

An election has a function that many people are not aware of, or do not care for. It does not matter so much which party gets voted. no matter whom you vote for, by participating in elections you legitimate and express support for the very system itself, and for the bureaucratic structure behind it that keeps it running and stays the same even when the names in politics are changing. And those calling for an obligational participation in elections want this legitimation being enforced. Opposing it should not be allowed, that is. If people do not voluntarily support it - force them to support it.

Sounds familiar, with regard to the way 480 million Europoeans are rejected to agree or to disagree to the Lisbon dictate, for example, and the rejection of the former constitution draft was refused to be respected by making only cosmetic changes and changing the order of the chapters, but leaving the substance, the content, and the objects of criticism untouched.

Don't ask them at all, or let them vote until they get tired and vote the way you want them to vote. If the Irish will say No again, let them vote a third time. And after all, are those few Irish right when letting fail what all others had said Yes to? the others that were not asked at all, that is?

Yes, the Irish have a right to do so, by the rules lined out and the rights legally given to them. Nobody has a right to cpmplain about nthem. Even more when it were not the often quoted european people who were asked in the other countries.

Wanting a mandatory participiation in votings shis says a lot about the political self-understanding of those demanding this. Most politicians that make a career beyond a certain level of national politics, are egomaniacs craving for attention , and pathologic narcissists, if not unscrupellous egoists. they can take anything: to be cursed, to be offended, to be opposed, to get slandered. But what they cannot bear is - to be ignored. Even hostility is a form of taking care of them, taking them serious, legitimising their very existence. But ignoring them...? How dare we...?

Demanding voting to be obligatory, is simply this: a declaration of moral and intellectual bancruptcy, and an expression of personal corruption. Plus: it does not help to prevent people making their voting tickets invalid. I personally would write L.M.A.A. on it, Germans know what it means.

Therefore I think we should end secret free elections and make it obligatory that people obey their duty to vote by letting them vote under close monitoring by an official who checks that they make their cross at the right position, and do not make their votes invalid. :yeah:

The outcome of the EU vote last weekend is somewhat paradox, however, although European people in general tend to favour a social and economical model that is more according to the left, they have voted centrist and conservative. I think it is expression of protest against individual national issues, and a consequence of the financial and economical crisis. the elctions probbaly say a lot more about natuonal conditions, than about Europe.

In Germany, we just have had the greatest company insolvence in German history, Arcandor. And this short after the debacle of Opel, where, almpost unnoticed by the public, the full dimension of the helplessness of the German government and the much higher hidden risks and costs have come to the surface). In both cases the SPD has called for massive state intervention, and blowing tax billions into it. And in both cases the new german economy minstre zu Guttenberg opposed that. Polls show that two third, three quarters and more of German reward zu Guttenberg'S stubborness to headlessly waste tax billions like this. the SPD's calculation to gain benefits in campaigning when subsidising jobs at all cost, no matter how high the costs may be, so far has turned out to be a complete and total Rohrkrepierer for the SPD.

And that is good.

On the other hand there are still plenty of elections this year, including national elections. And this will make a lot of politicians trying stupid things while campaining, and wasting money that is not theirs.

It is said that elections are a benefit of democracy and a sign for freedom. But especially in campaign times you can conclude that in the face of so much substance-less promises and stupid phrases and irresponsible wasting of taxes in projects to win this or that voter group - you could as well argue that elections are not a benefit of democracy, but it's curse and doom.

Even more so when considering that electing somebody does not mean the elected is competent and blesses with a sense of responsibility.

And me, well, I am highly political when not going to voting. I make a political statement, a statement saying that I refuse to legitimate what I am not willing to make myself guilty of legitimising. I say that they do not deserve neither my trust, nor my assistance, and that I do not believe their lies and selfish policies. And I say that I refuse to support their visions and ideas of how the world should become, and that I do not tolerate their plans for policies that I totally oppose and see as causing more harm than benefit, or being irrational and unrealistic. Some say it is wise to always choose the lesser of two evils. I say the lesser evil is still an evil, and wisdom sometimes lies in supporting none of the two. Else what you get is - evil.

The day they would decide a legal obligation to vote in elections, will be the day when this country/EU will have lost the fading rest of my sympathy completely and see it not as my home anymore, but an enemy like in war.

It's not a perfect world - far from it, is it.

Respenus

06-12-09, 05:09 PM

The reactions especially from SPD politicians in German to their party's long-lasting fall, is most revealing. there was a demand from within their faction that we should get a mandatory legal obligation to vote in elections, and not doing so should become punished.

An election has a function that many people are not aware of, or do not care for. It does not matter so much which party gets voted. no matter whom you vote for, by participating in elections you legitimate and express support for the very system itself, and for the bureaucratic structure behind it that keeps it running and stays the same even when the names in politics are changing. And those calling for an obligational participation in elections want this legitimation being enforced. Opposing it should not be allowed, that is. If people do not voluntarily support it - force them to support it.
What else do we have for a choice Skybird? Of course every system is a system of self-replicating elites, one can clearly see that in Slovenia, where the rule of the democratic centre-right existed for 4 years and then turning back into the bureaucratic system of Bolshevism, yet that is a tale for another time and place. Yet the question we should ask ourselves is, can obligatory voting do more harm to democracy and the republican ideal and just leaving the system be and the whole of electoral falling into general apathy. People have known democracy for a long time now and the important thing which has happened in most EU states is that they believe that they cannot change anything and that things remain the same. That might be true to some extent, yet can we really risk apathy of the electorate or is a new kind of democratic revolution necessary to bring once more that ideals for which our forefathers have fought and died for to all members of society, the ideals which I see rapidly falling into decline.

Sounds familiar, with regard to the way 480 million Europoeans are rejected to agree or to disagree to the Lisbon dictate, for example, and the rejection of the former constitution draft was refused to be respected by making only cosmetic changes and changing the order of the chapters, but leaving the substance, the content, and the objects of criticism untouched.

As far as the Lisbon treaty is concerned, well, lets just say that we have been over this so many times and while I do to a certain extent hope for further democratisation, that is making the EU more republican in nature (not be be considered in the sense as a singular state), yet where people express their opinions freely, that this opinions take taken into consideration by the politicians or whoever might be in power. Yet the Lisbon treaty is not the Treaty for the European Constitution, even though it might be similar in nature and might have certain part directly copied, it will do more harm to the further development and "democratisation" of the EU than the Treaty for the European Constitution by making things even more complex and difficult to understand. I know I had to spend many an hour studying EU law to just catch a glimpse of how things are done, now, they will become even more complex.

Just a question for you Skybird and all who oppose one way or another the EU. Are not states which make up the EU democratic? Are not their representatives democratically elected or at least chosen though representation? Is not the Parliament democratic due to being the sole elected organ? What everyone is forgetting that the EU is as supranational as states want it to be and as democratic as they want it to be, as they have, for the most part, the highest degree of representation of what is considered the democratic, yet not also republican, political system in member states?
___
I wished to respond to every one of your ideas Skybird, yet it is late and I must call it a night. I shall respond tomorrow if you do not beat me and respond first to what I have written.

Skybird

06-12-09, 06:48 PM

Respenus

06-13-09, 03:21 AM

A question for you, Respenius.

If 100 million "Alphas" elect 10 thousand "Betas", and these 10 thousand "Betas" then elect 100 "Deltas", and these 100 "Deltas" elect a council of 3 leaders,

and than three other groups like the "Alphas" in this example do like this, too,

and then the 4x3 leaders come together and form a gremium of 12 where the agree to have one superior leader -

is this one leader than democratically legitimised by the 400 million different Alphas?

Yes, Skybird, he is. For a very simple reason. If the Alphas decided that they will allow such a system of representation to take place and to be the system used to decision making of whatever level, than the final leader, while kept in check by the 12, is democratically legitimised by the 400 million different Alphas. It is the same system we have today, to a certain degree. We still vote MP and they hold democratic legitimacy. The problem of this legitimacy is in my answer to the next paragraph.

And if he decides and the gremium of 12 decides issues and policies that the 400 million different Alphas do not want and never have agree to and never have voted for - is it okay to say to them that they should accept it nevertheless, since the council of 12 and its leader are democratically legitimised by the 400 million Alphas?

And if this council at the top and it's leader than decides policies that never have been set up for election to the Alphas, can you say then the Alphas ever legitimised these policies?

And if these policies are even not only not legitimised by the Alphas, but even are in known and direct opposition to what a known solid majority of all Alphas want them to be, and if they reject them therefore, can one then say that they have no right to not wanting them since the nevertheless democratically legitimised them?

Here I agree with you. No matter how "democratically legitimised" a system of representatives is, it can never and should never do something which is against the general wished of the population. The people should see which laws are being passed in parliament, see what the Government does and how it leads the state or whichever different form of organisation and decide on a "day-to-day" basis if they like or dislike the policies of the Government and if the MPs are truly acting as representatives or are they just a bunch of bureaucrats.

This is why I like France and the French people. While all states as the Governments are of the people, by the people and for the people, I believe that it is only the French people which takes the reins of Government and what laws are passed into their own hands and this is something which would prevent the further spread of apathy in Europe and democratise the democratic process, which has fallen into a bit of a crisis. This world has become so vast and difficult that it is hard for a citizen to follow all the laws necessary to lead a state and its complex structures. But more on that latter on.

The process I outlined above as an abstract "model", is the reason why people, as you say, do not care and lose interest in politics. It creates the apathy you warned of.

but why warning of it? Hell, I hope and wish that less than 5% of people would go to elections. then it would be totally obvious even for the blind cold stone buried under a moutain that the "winner" of those elections would not have any legitimicy to think he represents the people.

DO you not believe this would set a dangerous precedent? Is only 5% of the electorate or even less vote than we have taken the first step to the dictatorship of the few, that is the people who go to the elections. The elected would still be democratically elected, yet the question of legitimacy would fade away, as this few voters would probably vote for someone who will bring them the biggest benefits. It would not be long before these elected people would change the law so that the few would govern, while others would need to follow their orders. And while this scenario is not entirely different from what we have today, we still have the possibility and the choice to go en mass and vote for those we believe will represent us the best.

Lets bring this system to a fall - by refusing to participate in it, refusing to legitimise it, by civil disobedience, rejecting to pay attention to the established structures and groups, and ignoring the figures and blocking the lobbies. Let'S let them run into an empty void and slam the door behind them.

that is the only chance to bring change into these frozen structures. Participating in them, legitimising them by voting for parts of their internal structures - only makes sure that that they carry on like they did in the past, unchanged and unchanging.

Do you really believe that these frozen structures may be changed by people not going to elections? They are bureaucrats, they are politicians, they are not the people and they do not understand, for the most part, what morals and ethics means. A single voter or millions of them means the same to them. A million voters out of which most give out blank ballots, now this is something which will gain the attention of the politicians and not just the academia, that something is wrong and must be changed. The curse of democracy is, that you have a choice and that if there is only a single person willing to make this choice, it will be considered democratic by most.

The time is not yet ripe for this, too many people still prefer to be small and silent and afraid and think about their own day-to-day interest first, never looking tejn years ahead. But the future we are heading into, is grim and gloomy, dripping with conflict and elemental fight for survival. The change we refused to allow taking place in a somewhat evolutionary way and at slower speed by accepting it while still not having run out of time, now will come nevertheless, but since it finds us unprepared and unwilling to prepare and with no time left, it will come in a revolutionary way, brutally fast, and where we find ourselves without time to adapt, it will simply break us and roll over us. The shortening of oil, disappearing ressources in general, climate change, desertification, loss of humus worldwide, the poisening of the ocean and the dissapearing of fish, the shortening in sweet water, the rising mass migration of the peoples, the mass dying of people living in the third world in areas that are affected by climate change - all this is on a head-on-collision course with our excessively wasteful hyper-materialistic way of living. And where it finds us unprepared, it will break us and washes the pieces away, that simple. For the old order, that represents what we allowed our former well-meant ideals to pervert into, is just standing in the way of things to come.

In a way, both ecologically and culturally-civilisational, we are moving backwards, so to speak, and return to circumstances and conditions of earlier times that represent earlier stages of things on planet Earth, with less order and more chaos. the higher the life form, the earlier it will disappear, while the lower life forms it was made of, will last longer. Civilisational structures will go first, then supernational structures, nations next, accompanied by the desintegration of ungovernable cities. It will go step by step in the order of it's construction - just in reverse. It's as if you read a book on human civilisation and man'S history - from the last to the first chapter.

I have nothing to add to this, as I completely agree, than this. Would it not be better to take an organised step into this unknown, to control this process and start living on a more manageable and sustainable local level, while retaining the cohesion needed on the bigger scale in order to secure trade and security from external threats. A system of semi-self-governing and inter-dependent autarkies, which would enable us to start living a more ecological life, a more democratic one and yet at the same time retain to the highest degree the right and privileges we have today and the technology which has helped this world become what it is. We have the technology now to return to a more "primitive", yet in a way more hospitable level of social cohesion, while loosing nothing we have today and augmenting the connections which have already been created. The idea of the united Europe is more bigger than states or the common market, it is a developing process which has helped us realise that we are not alone and that we must all work together to achieve this common goal that we al share, not just in Europe yet everywhere, that is a good life with enough freedoms to further develop our society, not merely in the technological and economic sense, yet also in the philosophical one, so that we may all live, although this will sound cheesy, happily ever after (to a certain degree of course, the human nature is irrational and as such prone to aggressive behaviour).

We are not just absurd in allowing that. We are suicidal on a civilisational level.

H.G. Wells had a very pessimistic view on human evolution, saying that it just forms the destructiveness that is set to destroy us. You can see that attitude in his novel "The Time Mchine". The older I become, and the more I see and experience, the more I tend to share his conclusions.

After this year or two of following your posts, I have realised what makes us different enough to disagree, yet at the same time share enough in common to cooperate, if I may use this word.

I do not wish you to take this the wrong way, yet your view on the world is too cynical for me. While I accept that we are consciously driving our world into ever greater ruin and that it will all end very, very soon if we do not do something, I consider myself to be an idealist and as such still believe with all my heart, that while man may be evil to a certain degree, society can change him to work for the common good and that society itself might and shall change to accept this virtues necessary to create this Second Golden Age of Men. Man is evil, yet he is also good, for both this disposition are as part of him as his organs are that we have seen that Europe has taken this first bright steps in the 50s, particularly with the Council of Europe to try and bring the best out of men. While political correctness has sometimes caused more harm than good, it is still a good foundation on which we can build and help change the world for the better, to bring light once more into the hearts and minds of men and to live in a rationalistic world in which all, man and nature, machine and plant will prosper.

Lurchi

06-13-09, 04:19 AM

And me, well, I am highly political when not going to voting. I make a political statement, a statement saying that I refuse to legitimate what I am not willing to make myself guilty of legitimising.
No, you do absolutely nothing but display the ultimate form of laziness - called ignorance.

You have a problem with the EU? Well, the ballot was more than long enough :o to contain a few parties which are against the Union in any form - so why didn't you make your cross there?

This is all not meant personally, but i am really fed up by people complaining all the time but unwilling to spent at least a little bit of time to go to vote. But okay, the elections are always on Sunday and the TV program is way more important ...

As far as i know the "dictate" of Lisbon should fix many problems of the decision making process in the now larger EU. I cannot see what is wrong with that.

OneToughHerring

06-13-09, 04:43 AM

I voted, the party I voted for did ok, doubled it's seats from 1 to 2. Now you'll probably be able to work out which party I voted for. :DL

But overall EU-elections are almost always a disappointment, it's just a bunch of populists and famous tabloid people trying to break into politics by skipping the party politics-phase and going straight for the prize which is the fat pay checks from the parliament. Then it's 4 years of silence from these people, until comes the next election.

Skybird

06-13-09, 05:34 AM

No, you do absolutely nothing but display the ultimate form of laziness - called ignorance.

You have a problem with the EU? Well, the ballot was more than long enough :o to contain a few parties which are against the Union in any form - so why didn't you make your cross there?

This is all not meant personally, but i am really fed up by people complaining all the time but unwilling to spent at least a little bit of time to go to vote. But okay, the elections are always on Sunday and the TV program is way more important ...

As far as i know the "dictate" of Lisbon should fix many problems of the decision making process in the now larger EU. I cannot see what is wrong with that.
I have explained in length why I do not vote. In the past I also went voting but gave an invalid ballot - before I understood that by doing so I still would support and legitimise what I do not wish to support and legitimise. You nplay the same trick on me like every politician calling the voters to vote. He knows that he could not last if too many people would not legitimise the very system itself - by voting.

Regarding your hint at the EU constitution fixing the decision making in the EU, I hear a recall of politicians' paroles what they tell the public it does. But of the many hidden contradictions and in fact: weakening of democracy and decision making processes, you seem to be unaware. I have explained it before in several post, and at some point in my reply to Respenius again, one post below. Please note that these are points that in part are brought to the German Constitutional High Court - by nobody else than the former president of the German Federal Republic and former president of the High Court itself, Roman Herzog, a known and reputated expert for constitutional law. Also note that key figures in the original history of the EEC (the predecessor of the EU), Helmut Schmidt and Valery Giscard d'Estaing, raise massive criticism about what the EU has turned into in the past 15 years, and criticise the content and the way of handling the debate of the EU constitution as well. d'Estaing has publicy denied that the content of the draft has been changed after it first failed with european referendums, and chnages are cosmetically only, and critical cointent has been better hidden, and the order of chapters have been changed without editing the chapters themselves. Schmidt says that the EU is heading in a way where the chances for it failing and breaking apart again are greater than the chances it would stay together. Both also criticise the EU over its reorientation, saying that this is not what the founding idea of the union has been.

Well, these three voices are not just some nobodies, you know.

Maybe you are just a little bit too credulous and uncritical.

Skybird

06-13-09, 07:22 AM

@Respenius, 1/2

Yes, Skybird, he is. For a very simple reason. If the Alphas decided that they will allow such a system of representation to take place and to be the system used to decision making of whatever level, than the final leader, while kept in check by the 12, is democratically legitimised by the 400 million different Alphas. It is the same system we have today, to a certain degree. We still vote MP and they hold democratic legitimacy. The problem of this legitimacy is in my answer to the next paragraph.

You did not get my point, it seems. The point is that the Alphas originally have legitimised the Betas only - and only them. Any further alienating in the legitimation of any higher levels in a hierarchy, as represented by the Deltas, the council and it's chief, have not gotten their legitimation. Because for the Alphas did not get asked what the Betas should do if this or that situation occure in the future - that at the time of election was not to be forseen. And in case of the EU and the Lisbon dictate, since you said the Alphas allowed these rules to define the legitimation process - as a matter of fact the Alphas (the EU citizens) are actively hindered to express whether they want it or not, since it is no secret that most people reject it. And that rejection is what the Betas, the Deltas and the council do not want. - In my fictional example, the council does not wish to ask the Alphas on it's own existence, since they may say No to it, which then would be the end of the council on top.

Democracy, and legitimation of future decisions, only functions if expressed more or less directly. With each addition of in-between-levels in the higher hierarchy of decision levels (sorry, don't know how to say it better), the vote at the very basis loses legitimation, and loses it rapidly. After just one or two additional steps like that, you already have created a reality in leader hierarchy that nobody ever got asked about, that has no direct or indirect legitimation, and maybe even was impossible to be forseen for the voters at the basic level. Do you think any significant group of voters voted their national presidents and/or parliaments so that they should form the EU constitution to be like it is now in its draft, and make the voters' national votings meaningless in the future? Hardly.

Then consider that this very draft, which in content is still identical with the Lisbon dictate, rules that the EU commission shall have the right to rule by extraordinary rules that allows it to bypass the veto of the parliament, na din principle can govern completely by just using emergqancy decrees for an unlimited time and wiothiut any criterions defined what an emergancy is, and that the EU already has the power - and uses it massively - to set up proposals that national parliaments cannot reject anymore, but must let pass through due to legal obligations. But the voters in the given countries have voted for their national parliamnts during the past national elections, and maybe they voted for a given party so that it should not allow a policy like what the EU now is enforcing - the voter's legitimation only is regarding the candidates he sent into the national parliament - and there, his chosen candidate is doomed to be helpless more or less, and must nodd off what voters wanted him to never accept.

Sovereign parliaments? Soveriegn national coinstitutions? Forget it.

80+ % of all legislation and laws in the eurozone are EU proposals already, that never have seen any - even distant - legitimation by voters at all. These proposals for the most not even get created by the parliament or the commission, but the bureaucratic apparatus that stays the same even if the names in parliament or the commission changes. These high bureaucrats never have to face a legitimiation process by the public. But still they are enormously powerful and influence the commission to a huge degree. the commission tends to follow their input almost uncritically.

And this also is possible if the Lisbon dictate comes true: that governments in their countries face a blockade in parliament over an issue, hand the issue to the commission, which turns it into an EU proposal - and then it must be nodded off by the parliament that originally strictly opposed it.

THESE POSSIBILITIES, THAT IN PARTS ALREADY GET PRACTICED, MAKE COMPLETE MOCKERY OF THE SOVEREIGNITY OF PARLIAMENTS AND OF THE DECISION OF VOTERS WHOM THEY LEGITIMISE AND WHOM THEY REFUSE. - IT IS NOT ABOUT FULFILLING VOTERS' INTENTIONS AND WILL, IT IS ABOUT DOING A POLICY DECIDED IN A FEW CIRCLES AND LOBBY GROUPS AT THE TOP, AND DOING THAT POLICY DESPITE THE VOTERS, NO MATTER WHAT THEY SAY AND VOTE FOR, IN COMPLETE IGNORRATION OF THEM. It is in the draft, read that damn thing, one of the most dangerous political pamphletes I ever heared of. There is a reason why it is so extremely complex and all the bad stuff is hidden not in the main text, but the appendices (roughly 600 pages of appendices to a document only around one dozen well-sounding but vague pages long???) Even most politicians do not understand it in full, and not a few admit they have never read it. They do not know what they are doing by agreeing to it, then.

Here I agree with you. No matter how "democratically legitimised" a system of representatives is, it can never and should never do something which is against the general wished of the population. The people should see which laws are being passed in parliament, see what the Government does and how it leads the state or whichever different form of organisation and decide on a "day-to-day" basis if they like or dislike the policies of the Government and if the MPs are truly acting as representatives or are they just a bunch of bureaucrats.

This is why I like France and the French people. While all states as the Governments are of the people, by the people and for the people, I believe that it is only the French people which takes the reins of Government and what laws are passed into their own hands and this is something which would prevent the further spread of apathy in Europe and democratise the democratic process, which has fallen into a bit of a crisis. This world has become so vast and difficult that it is hard for a citizen to follow all the laws necessary to lead a state and its complex structures. But more on that latter on.

But that is a problem in itself, since it interferes with longterm policies. Although I criticise that too many in-between steps in legitimation processes rapidly lose legitimation of the top, I still see and agree that in the relation between voter and that he directly voted for not all future decisions the latter will do, are forseeable at the time of voting. Also, stability and constancy only is possible if voters cannot interfere at every opportunity and time on the basis of daily changing moods. This is one argument often given why those being voted should be allowed to elect a superior gremium from there own within circle that is not available for direct voting by the voters. In principle I agree, since else too much daily moods and protests that are more against something than that they are in favour of something, would have an effect on national politics. One needs to find a balance there, and the slider has to be as close to the basic voter's level as possible.

I have argued in the past that I tend to think that democracies only work in relatively small communities. The bigger their size, the stronger the tendency of non-democratic oligarchic structures appearing from their middle and taking over the leadership and economy.

DO you not believe this would set a dangerous precedent? Is only 5% of the electorate or even less vote than we have taken the first step to the dictatorship of the few, that is the people who go to the elections. The elected would still be democratically elected, yet the question of legitimacy would fade away, as this few voters would probably vote for someone who will bring them the biggest benefits. It would not be long before these elected people would change the law so that the few would govern, while others would need to follow their orders. And while this scenario is not entirely different from what we have today, we still have the possibility and the choice to go en mass and vote for those we believe will represent us the best.

You see it still as a democratic legitimation, I do not, and while the result eventually will be the attempt by the few to establish an elitarist form of tyranny over the many (a feudal structure, in principle, and once can argue that we already have that), I see another result, spiced up by the pressure of the material changes in our environmnt as well: revolution.

A revolution may be successful in washing away the old order, or not, and it may be successful in establishing a new order, or not. It is risky business. But I see that sticking to the old order in the ways I criticse to vehemently, already has sealed our doom in the face of things to come. These very structures are the reason why we do not adapt as fast as we must. We need to get rid of it, or we are done in the longterm - of this I am more or less convinced. So, a revolution offers no guarantees, but at least a chance. Sticking with the old order guarantees chancelessness. We must not cry for it, since it has lost major parts of its democratic legitimation anyway, and is only a hollow facade of a democracy anyway, maintained to mislead the people who should be obedient and should vote - keeping on to assume their vote has a substantial meaning.

Obviously more and more people do not see their votes having a substantial meaning anymore. And differences between major opposing political factions like SPD and CDU in Germany, are disappearing. In some aspects, the conservative CDU is as left or even more left than the SPD ever was. Outside campaigning, the SPD has adopted some conservative hardcore economics. Voting only has a meaning if two conditions are fulfilled: you have the choice between a diverse set of different options, and those being elected fulfill the intention the voters have voted them for. If you have no real choices, or choices that only are represented by shorttermed and cosmetic differences, or those being elected, afterwards do what they want, then voting does not make sense. It only expresses an agreement with the system being like it is: distorted, hijacked, and constantly alienating itself more and more from the people.

Skybird

06-13-09, 07:22 AM

@Respenius, 2/2

Do you really believe that these frozen structures may be changed by people not going to elections? They are bureaucrats, they are politicians, they are not the people and they do not understand, for the most part, what morals and ethics means. A single voter or millions of them means the same to them. A million voters out of which most give out blank ballots, now this is something which will gain the attention of the politicians and not just the academia, that something is wrong and must be changed. The curse of democracy is, that you have a choice and that if there is only a single person willing to make this choice, it will be considered democratic by most.

I am extremely sceptical about the chances for a civilised, peaceful change, no matter whether by voting or boycotting elections. In the present, people still feel cozy and lazy and are optimistic (which makes the other so sympathetic, isn't he a nice guy), and while we feel some pressure in form of threateend jobs most o f us think that the future is still far away and yes, there will be problpems, but it will be allright, don'T worry. but I think the transition to not as pleasant social living conditions anymore will not be a slow one, but at one point will abruptly win in pace and causing a sudden shockwave that shakes us awaken while we are still sleeping and rdeaming (the reasons why I think for such an abrupt change instead of a slow transition are so complex that they would be a topic in itself, so save me from explaining it here). As you said, the established structures are too strong as that they must allow the quesitoning of their powers without resisting and without manipulating. This is the historic basis on which revolutions grow: people either are desperate, or realise that the established order is at their cost, but is unavailable for them to change it by the established and/or allowed rules. And that's why revolutions tend to be so brutal and bloody. I once was asked what I think why the French revolution was so bloody for the standards of its time, and so unforgiving. My answer is still the same like it was back then: it would not have functioned any other way.

I have nothing to add to this, as I completely agree, than this. Would it not be better to take an organised step into this unknown, to control this process and start living on a more manageable and sustainable local level, while retaining the cohesion needed on the bigger scale in order to secure trade and security from external threats. A system of semi-self-governing and inter-dependent autarkies, which would enable us to start living a more ecological life, a more democratic one and yet at the same time retain to the highest degree the right and privileges we have today and the technology which has helped this world become what it is. We have the technology now to return to a more "primitive", yet in a way more hospitable level of social cohesion, while loosing nothing we have today and augmenting the connections which have already been created. The idea of the united Europe is more bigger than states or the common market, it is a developing process which has helped us realise that we are not alone and that we must all work together to achieve this common goal that we al share, not just in Europe yet everywhere, that is a good life with enough freedoms to further develop our society, not merely in the technological and economic sense, yet also in the philosophical one, so that we may all live, although this will sound cheesy, happily ever after (to a certain degree of course, the human nature is irrational and as such prone to aggressive behaviour).

As already said, the established order, representing interest groups and lobbies of both power and money orientation, are too powerful as that they must allow this just to happen. I am extremely pessimistic here. I mean I think I see it realistic, but on this issue, realism depicts such a grim picture that you could as well mistake it with pessimism.

And one general fact there is you did not mention: WE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE WALKING ON PLANET EARTH. 5-6 times too many, I estimate. the planet, the ecosphere, the biosphere, the environment sooner or later will take care of that in their own ways - and we will not like them. So, opur economies and politial system are just one part of an even greater problem. WE ARE TOO MANY, and our material needs and demands to the bplanet are too much, therefore, in every aspect, in every regard. And when saying "too many people, too much material demands", we do not talk about fractions and percentages, but about full factors. - On this level one must ask the legitimate and reasonable question if a democratic world order even would ever allow us to adress this basic problem adequately. Ask that question, and come to an answer most of us probbaly would find most unpleasant. - Now you know why the question never gets asked.

Add to this that certain processes man has caused in the environment now are running by a self-dynamic that would make them (and consequent developements) running on for a long time to come, even if the human variable and it's influence all of a sudden would be deleted from the planetary formula from one second to the next.

After this year or two of following your posts, I have realised what makes us different enough to disagree, yet at the same time share enough in common to cooperate, if I may use this word.

At least we are able to keep the talking friendly. that is much appreciated, really.

I do not wish you to take this the wrong way, yet your view on the world is too cynical for me.

Cynical is a kind of venomous "humour" that derives from bad events and sad circumstances. It is taking a pathologic pleasure from seeing the bad and evil in things and people. I do not take pleasure from painting the picture in the dark colurs like I do. It's just that I look at things, see them like I do, and paint what I see. It certainly is a very grim, brutal future I see. I wish I would see something different, and I wish you would be right and I would be wrong.

While I accept that we are consciously driving our world into ever greater ruin and that it will all end very, very soon if we do not do something, I consider myself to be an idealist and as such still believe with all my heart, that while man may be evil to a certain degree, society can change him to work for the common good and that society itself might and shall change to accept this virtues necessary to create this Second Golden Age of Men. Man is evil, yet he is also good, for both this disposition are as part of him as his organs are that we have seen that Europe has taken this first bright steps in the 50s, particularly with the Council of Europe to try and bring the best out of men. While political correctness has sometimes caused more harm than good, it is still a good foundation on which we can build and help change the world for the better, to bring light once more into the hearts and minds of men and to live in a rationalistic world in which all, man and nature, machine and plant will prosper.

You have my sympathy. I wish I would see things more like you do, it would be a more comfortable life, I assume, but I can't. I have spend three quarters of my life to learn to be a realist and see things like they are, not like I wish them to be. I taught and trained people for seeing that difference for several years. Living by an idea of the world disconnected from reality, maybe makes your living easier, and indeed many people chose this path for winning comfort and a feeling of control and safety. But it leaves people unprepared, for no matter what your ideals are, things still are what they are - ignoring or agreeing with your ideals. Depends on you ideals, you know. Life is neither something you control in full, nor are you ever safe from anything. Uncertainty is the rule. Safety is temprary and relative only. Living is changing, and thus: constant good-byeing to the old ways (a big pill to swallow for most of us, including myself). How can you find adequate strategies if you refuse to see problems like they are? You will always only treat illusions instead. And indeed, that is what common politics is about: it creates it's own realities, and ignores realities it does not feel fit to adress. By focussing on illusions, it gives the impression of omnipotency. And that not only leaves you unprepared, but also strips you off the thought why it is needed to be prepared.

The fate of being caught by surprise is self-made and well deserved, then.

Respenus

06-13-09, 08:17 AM

Thank you for explaining in some greater detail you second post on which I commented and it did clear up some "difficulties" I had in understand the fundamental idea behind your reasoning. I do apologise for not commenting on every single issue you opened, I unfortunately do not have the necessary amount of time right now.

And one general fact there is you did not mention: WE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE WALKING ON PLANET EARTH. 5-6 times too many, I estimate. the planet, the ecosphere, the biosphere, the environment sooner or later will take care of that in their own ways - and we will not like them. So, opur economies and politial system are just one part of an even greater problem. WE ARE TOO MANY, and our material needs and demands to the bplanet are too much, therefore, in every aspect, in every regard. And when saying "too many people, too much material demands", we do not talk about fractions and percentages, but about full factors. - On this level one must ask the legitimate and reasonable question if a democratic world order even would ever allow us to adress this basic problem adequately. Ask that question, and come to an answer most of us probbaly would find most unpleasant. - Now you know why the question never gets asked.

Add to this that certain processes man has caused in the environment now are running by a self-dynamic that would make them (and consequent developements) running on for a long time to come, even if the human variable and it's influence all of a sudden would be deleted from the planetary formula from one second to the next.

The main reason why I did not state this problem is because it is so contested. I know very well and am constantly worried by the large population Earth has to support, even some scientists are turning around and staring to point this problem out. While it may be easy to talk about it, it is nigh-impossible to solve it. How does someone propose to the Chinese or the Indians that they should reduce 80% or more of their population? Or anywhere also for that matter. That is why you are right that changes will be abrupt and will also pass over quickly, yet the destruction left behind is beyond imagining.

At least we are able to keep the talking friendly. that is much appreciated, really.

I appreciate it as well. I have no quarrel with you and I quite frankly enjoy in conversing with some who takes the time to explain his opinions in detail.

You have my sympathy. I wish I would see things more like you do, it would be a more comfortable life, I assume, but I can't. I have spend three quarters of my life to learn to be a realist and see things like they are, not like I wish them to be. I taught and trained people for seeing that difference for several years. Living by an idea of the world disconnected from reality, maybe makes your living easier, and indeed many people chose this path for winning comfort and a feeling of control and safety. But it leaves people unprepared, for no matter what your ideals are, things still are what they are - ignoring or agreeing with your ideals. Depends on you ideals, you know. Life is neither something you control in full, nor are you ever safe from anything. Uncertainty is the rule. Safety is temprary and relative only. Living is changing, and thus: constant good-byeing to the old ways (a big pill to swallow for most of us, including myself). How can you find adequate strategies if you refuse to see problems like they are? You will always only treat illusions instead. And indeed, that is what common politics is about: it creates it's own realities, and ignores realities it does not feel fit to adress. By focussing on illusions, it gives the impression of omnipotency. And that not only leaves you unprepared, but also strips you off the thought why it is needed to be prepared.

The fate of being caught by surprise is self-made and well deserved, then.

No need for sympathy Skybird. I pride myself in being a rationalist, someone who takes empirical evidence first and who does not dwell in dreams that things will change just because one wished it to be so. I know that hard work is needed to bring about any change, what I want to do is colossal in nature and I am also well aware that I cannot do it alone or that there is a chance that I newer will. Call it my youthful "irrational" thinking/wishing, yet I still hold the spark of joy inside of me, even though the fire is long out due to what I have seen happen in the world around me. I know very well I am not in control of the forces of life, nor do I dwell in illusions of fairy tales and castles, even though it sometimes appears to be the easiest way out, yet I have yet to the the easy road to somewhere. I know the world is dark, I know the never-ending fire of progress will consume us all, yet is it a crime to hope, to wish and to dare to change ones world for the better. If I add a year of life to this forsaken species, I shall be happy. Adding a generation would be an achievement of Gods and saving this world appears impossible for anyone but Nature and the Universe.

Yet my spark remains adamant and even though its lights does not always shine the brightest, it still lights the path amidst this dark and cruel world, hoping that one day the fire may be rekindled.

Letum

06-13-09, 08:26 AM

You have my sympathy. I wish I would see things more like you do, it would be a more comfortable life [...]

:nope:
You don't present your self very well when you take this kind of tone.

Skybird

06-13-09, 08:41 AM

Will you please quote the paragraph in full before attacking me, Letum. In the full context, your quote imo is not like you make it appear now. I did not say he has my condolence (now that would be haughty), I said he has my sympathy, and I mean it. I really wish I would see a lighter and brighter future ahead for our childrenan. But I can see that only when ignoring too many things I consider to be "facts". And when I take them into account, what has appeared as light and bright, is gone. Did you think I take some sick pleasure from being like Cassandra all the time?

Respenius, I need to get some things done, but will check your reply this evening.

Letum

06-13-09, 08:50 AM

Perhaps it is something lost/gained in translation.

Skybird

06-13-09, 01:32 PM

Letum,

here you are right. It got lost in translation indeed.

In German, "Symphatie" usually has not the wide range of meanings like "sympathy" can have in English. In English it can mean "compassion", and I assume this is where you criticism is coming from. But in German, that would not be "Du hast meine Symphatie", sondern "Du hast mein Mitgefühl". German "Symphatie" in meaning is more limited to the meaning of a positive attitude towards somebody. It eventually can express, indirectly, compassion, but that would be indirectly only, and very much accentuated from the context in which the word is used. As a rule of thumb, "Symphatie" in German means that positive attitude thing most of the time, and that was what I wished to express. If I would have meant "compassion", as an ignorrant German I would have used the word compassion or condolence, then.

Sorry if I messed it up, Respenus. My fault. After all, English is a foreign language for me, and sometimes I manage to trap myself badly in it.

Skybird

06-13-09, 02:05 PM

The main reason why I did not state this problem is because it is so contested. I know very well and am constantly worried by the large population Earth has to support, even some scientists are turning around and staring to point this problem out. While it may be easy to talk about it, it is nigh-impossible to solve i t. How does someone propose to the Chinese or the Indians that they should reduce 80% or more of their population? Or anywhere also for that matter. That is why you are right that changes will be abrupt and will also pass over quickly, yet the destruction left behind is beyond imagining.

I fear so, but as I said, the global contexts in which man is embedded will take care of the problem their own way sooner or later. And then we will stand aside in helplessness, and will not belief the ammount of suffering. Or we will not care, like we learned to do over the past 40 years and more. BTW, why do you think just the Indians and Chinese must reduce their populations? I do not exclude Europeans and Americans as well, no to mention Africans and South Americans. To me, dear old Gerjmany is an extremely crowded place. I know that it is even worse in other places, say Seoul or Tokyo or Los Angeles, but these nightmares are almost beyond imagination for me. At no cost I want to live there, not even for a million per year. :)

No need for sympathy Skybird.

Please read my reply to Letum above. It seems I messed up vocabulary. My apology to you, if you had not realised all by yourself what I meant, and took my comment queer. It was my fault.

I pride myself in being a rationalist, someone who takes empirical evidence first and who does not dwell in dreams that things will change just because one wished it to be so. I know that hard work is needed to bring about any change, what I want to do is colossal in nature and I am also well aware that I cannot do it alone or that there is a chance that I newer will. Call it my youthful "irrational" thinking/wishing, yet I still hold the spark of joy inside of me, even though the fire is long out due to what I have seen happen in the world around me. I know very well I am not in control of the forces of life, nor do I dwell in illusions of fairy tales and castles, even though it sometimes appears to be the easiest way out, yet I have yet to the the easy road to somewhere. I know the world is dark, I know the never-ending fire of progress will consume us all, yet is it a crime to hope, to wish and to dare to change ones world for the better. If I add a year of life to this forsaken species, I shall be happy. Adding a generation would be an achievement of Gods and saving this world appears impossible for anyone but Nature and the Universe.

Yet my spark remains adamant and even though its lights does not always shine the brightest, it still lights the path amidst this dark and cruel world, hoping that one day the fire may be rekindled.

It is not so different with me, at least most of the time. Though I prefer to fight, and though I seem to know it will be in vain, I still do so with joy in my heart, maybe a little bit like those famous words that maybe are just put into the mouth of Luther: "Even if I knew that tomorrow was the end of the world, I still would plant an apple tree today!" . Because in the end this is my life, I need to confess to my own conscience, and if fate has placed me in this time and place, I may see the grim things to come, but still have no other choice than to make the best of it and make use of my options to influence the outcome, no matter how limited they may be. To me, this means not to comfortably hand over responsibility to foreigners by making a cross on a ballot, knowing that it is wrong, but trying to influence the individual that I meet face to face. For I am sure that any eventual improvement will only last if it bases on true insight and conviction of people, and is not acchieved by more economical tricks and media cheats. Some may argue it is more economical to work and raise millions, invest in a Tv station or a party and adress the wide public. But we have that - and what has it helped us? I have been engaged in voluntary work, and as a meditation teacher I worked for free over years. I have learned to meet all mass movements with utmost scepticism, and that nothing can replace the individual looking after the single individual person finding himself in search of answers. and where people have no doubts all by themselves, they are unlikely to accept new content. Besides other reasons, these are two of the most important reasons why I am so unforgivingly hostile to mass religions and cults.

CastleBravo

06-13-09, 02:09 PM

Its interesting in a way that this is now a topic. Two years ago it was all about the bad Americans. Now that we have a weak president the EU is finally getting back to its own issues.

Letum

06-13-09, 02:09 PM

In English your meaning translates better as: "I have sympathy with your/that viewpoint".

CastleBravo

06-13-09, 02:39 PM

In English your meaning translates better as: "I have sympathy with your/that viewpoint".

I think you are right Letum. I do have sympathy, but a bit of scheudenfraude also.

Respenus

06-13-09, 03:23 PM

I fear so, but as I said, the global contexts in which man is embedded will take care of the problem their own way sooner or later. And then we will stand aside in helplessness, and will not belief the ammount of suffering. Or we will not care, like we learned to do over the past 40 years and more. BTW, why do you think just the Indians and Chinese must reduce their populations? I do not exclude Europeans and Americans as well, no to mention Africans and South Americans. To me, dear old Gerjmany is an extremely crowded place. I know that it is even worse in other places, say Seoul or Tokyo or Los Angeles, but these nightmares are almost beyond imagination for me. At no cost I want to live there, not even for a million per year. :)

I believe I did, when I said "Or anywhere else for that matter". Doesn't really matter. Looks like we have another thing we share Skybird, I myself do not like large cities very much. The first time I went to Paris on my own and went to the Champs-Elysée, I almost had an anxiety attack. Christ, I did not end and the number of people. And it was not really a busy day. That is why I proposed in my previous post smaller communities which can more easily take matters into their own hands and make sure, what while they conform to the rule of law of the greater area, that things are kept in check, as they themselves know their neighbours better than someone else. Yet again, we must think about the human personality and the "Slovenian syndrome", that is always wanting to have more than your neighbour, yet I believe that with time and education even this can be solved.

Please read my reply to Letum above. It seems I messed up vocabulary. My apology to you, if you had not realised all by yourself what I meant, and took my comment queer. It was my fault.

No problem Skybird. I guest in a way that you did not take pity of me when you used the word sympathy. Apology accepted.

It is not so different with me, at least most of the time. Though I prefer to fight, and though I seem to know it will be in vain, I still do so with joy in my heart, maybe a little bit like those famous words that maybe are just put into the mouth of Luther: "Even if I knew that tomorrow was the end of the world, I still would plant an apple tree today!" . Because in the end this is my life, I need to confess to my own conscience, and if fate has placed me in this time and place, I may see the grim things to come, but still have no other choice than to make the best of it and make use of my options to influence the outcome, no matter how limited they may be. To me, this means not to comfortably hand over responsibility to foreigners by making a cross on a ballot, knowing that it is wrong, but trying to influence the individual that I meet face to face. For I am sure that any eventual improvement will only last if it bases on true insight and conviction of people, and is not acchieved by more economical tricks and media cheats. Some may argue it is more economical to work and raise millions, invest in a Tv station or a party and adress the wide public. But we have that - and what has it helped us? I have been engaged in voluntary work, and as a meditation teacher I worked for free over years. I have learned to meet all mass movements with utmost scepticism, and that nothing can replace the individual looking after the single individual person finding himself in search of answers. and where people have no doubts all by themselves, they are unlikely to accept new content. Besides other reasons, these are two of the most important reasons why I am so unforgivingly hostile to mass religions and cults.

This is becoming a nasty habit Skybird, we seem to be agreeing more and more. Are you growing soft with old age or did I pick up an ounce of knowledge or two?

In all seriousness, I myself dislike all mass cults and even mass control of the public. I am particularly critical of religions which do not let their congregation to think freely and examine what sacred texts there are and decide for themselves what they wish to believe or disbelieve in. Although, one must always be vigilant, if one does not wish to risk what is happening to the USA with the thousands of factions or splinter groups which are more or less radical in nature and as dangerous as the islamists.

Yet how does one go and change the world Skybird. I seek to teach reason to those around me, yet I am but one man. While I may hope that the spark I carry will ignite the flame in others, or at least brighten their paths for a few moments, how can I effect people on a larger scale needed for us to change so radically so that we may survive? If I go en masse, I risk becoming the televangelists or spark a mass movement which will in its irrationally of the masses bring more harm than good and completely distort my message? How do you propose that we "impose" that what needed, when the people do not wish to wake up from their comfortable consumerist dreams and face the harsh reality which is the outside world and their community, to which have have responsibilities as well as privileges. When does this change of the community, or better yet, the society, which you have to admit is necessary, turn into a radical-fest destroying what little you have constructed so far?

Hitman

06-13-09, 03:25 PM

I'm now 36 years old and since I was 18 I have had the chance to vote. However, I have NEVER EVER in my life voted :) Why? When I was 18 I was still unsure about what and who I considered worthy voting. I considered voting not a guts or simple interests action, but something that should be more thought about, more serious. So I decided to wait and follow the political scene. It ended up in not willing to vote anyone :nope:

But also at 18 I started my university law studies and with that, learning the "system" well through, as well as a good part of political science (In Spain the jurist/law studies program has a share of politic science study on it) and I started HATING it and feeling sick of what I saw and learned. So my non-voting became a personal conviction of intimate hate and disgust with the system and specially, with the persons who managed it.

¿Do you want to make voting mandatory? OVER MY DEAD BODY YOU MORONS. I prefer to pay a fine and not vote rather than to participate in this disgusting system and give it an appearance of acceptation or whatever.

CastleBravo

06-13-09, 04:03 PM

Yeah making voting mandatory does take away from the process. Forced democracy isn't democracy at all. is it?

Respenus

06-13-09, 04:04 PM

But also at 18 I started my university law studies and with that, learning the "system" well through, as well as a good part of political science (In Spain the jurist/law studies program has a share of politic science study on it) and I started HATING it and feeling sick of what I saw and learned. So my non-voting became a personal conviction of intimate hate and disgust with the system and specially, with the persons who managed it.

¿Do you want to make voting mandatory? OVER MY DEAD BODY YOU MORONS. I prefer to pay a fine and not vote rather than to participate in this disgusting system and give it an appearance of acceptation or whatever.

What do you propose? What do you all propose when voting is not an option and mass movements pose more harm than good to the democratic (in it most pure form) and republican process?

Letum

06-13-09, 05:24 PM

Yeah making voting mandatory does take away from the process. Forced democracy isn't democracy at all. is it?

Im not in favor of forced voting, but I don't see why it wouldn't be democracy.

CastleBravo

06-13-09, 05:38 PM

Im not in favor of forced voting, but I don't see why it wouldn't be democracy.

I guess any time the vote is inflicted on the populous it isn't democracy. Its the hand of tyranny, defining democracy. Anything forced is far and away from anything I define as freedom.

Aramike

06-13-09, 05:53 PM

I guess any time the vote is inflicted on the populous it isn't democracy. Its the hand of tyranny, defining democracy. Anything forced is far and away from anything I define as freedom.While I agree that forcing people to vote would be an infringement upon freedom, I do not believe that it would violate any of the principals of democracy.

Think about it: say the people voted to force all citizens to vote. If forcing citizens to vote in the first place is not democratic, and ignoring the vote of the citizens to impose forced voting would not be democratic, we'd be left with an unresolvable paradox. :doh:

Skybird

06-13-09, 06:00 PM

Im not in favor of forced voting, but I don't see why it wouldn't be democracy.
Maybe you also do not see why the German Democratic Republic (where they had several parties to chose from - true! ;) ) was anything but democratic a political system.

CastleBravo

06-13-09, 06:40 PM

While I agree that forcing people to vote would be an infringement upon freedom, I do not believe that it would violate any of the principals of democracy.

Think about it: say the people voted to force all citizens to vote. If forcing citizens to vote in the first place is not democratic, and ignoring the vote of the citizens to impose forced voting would not be democratic, we'd be left with an unresolvable paradox. :doh:

I guess I have a different view of democracy. Although forcing a vote has been done in other nations it doesn't seem to be democracy as I understand it. Forced democracy is not democracy...it is tyranny using the name of democracy as a cover. That is my view.

Aramike

06-13-09, 07:05 PM

I guess I have a different view of democracy. Although forcing a vote has been done in other nations it doesn't seem to be democracy as I understand it. Forced democracy is not democracy...it is tyranny using the name of democracy as a cover. That is my view."Democracy" has little to do with how it is exercised and practiced, but I understand your point and agree with you in principle.

Letum

06-13-09, 07:10 PM

CastleBravo

06-13-09, 07:17 PM

I agree that it isn't free, but you can have democracy with out freedom and
freedom without democracy.

So tyranny means nothing and democracy is on the same level. I have to say I am saddened by the understanding of democracy, human rights, and republicanism as many understand it.

Wasn't this how national socialism took hold? make my life better and i'll support you, never mind that i don't want to make it better on a personal level, national socialist government do it for me.

Letum

06-13-09, 07:47 PM

So tyranny means nothing and democracy is on the same level.

It's possible to have a tyranny with freedom and a democracy without
freedom.

A benevolent tyrant will run a free tyranny. Democratic voters who don't want
freedom will elect a party that will remove their freedoms.

That is just the way things are.

CastleBravo

06-14-09, 12:01 AM

It's possible to have a tyranny with freedom and a democracy without
freedom.

A benevolent tyrant will run a free tyranny. Democratic voters who don't want
freedom will elect a party that will remove their freedoms.

That is just the way things are.

I guess I am naive but I don't recall any tyrant who was benevolent, nor any true democracy which didn't have individual liberty(freedom) as its foundation.

Aramike

06-14-09, 12:13 AM

I guess I am naive but I don't recall any tyrant who was benevolent, nor any true democracy which didn't have individual liberty(freedom) as its foundation.It's just semantics, really. The only freedom democracy truly provides when left to its own devices is the freedom to cast any vote you'd like. Letum is exactly right - the word democracy has nothing to do with any other freedom than that of allowing you to choose what box to fill in on the ballot.

CastleBravo

06-14-09, 12:35 AM

I don't see the vote in Iran as true democracy. The power lies with a mullah who is never up for a vote and by definition is a tyrant/dictator.

The Iranian president is a figurehead whose role, in Iran's case, is to speek badly of and threaten those the mullah deems fit to chastize. Am I wrong?

Aramike

06-14-09, 12:49 AM

CastleBravo

06-14-09, 12:53 AM

Well, the vote is democratic. But the nation surely isn't.

I guess by definition the vote in the former Soviet Union, while it was the Soviet Union was democratic also. Yet we all know that the premier would always be the same. The ability to oust a sitting government legally is the definition i'd like to go with. Not that I can do anything but bitch about it.

Letum

06-14-09, 09:00 AM

I guess I am naive but I don't recall any tyrant who was benevolent, nor any true democracy which didn't have individual liberty(freedom) as its foundation.

That is besides the point. Even if there where never any un-free democracies
and free tyrannies, both are possible.
A benevolent tyrant will run a free tyranny. Democratic voters who don't
want freedom will elect a party that will remove their freedoms.

That said, there have been plenty of benevolent tyrants. Monarchs of small
countries are very often benevolent.
There have been plenty of democracies in countries highly dependent on slave
labor as well. The freedoms in a democracy are only as great as what is voted
for.

Hitman

06-14-09, 12:23 PM

What do you propose? What do you all propose when voting is not an option and mass movements pose more harm than good to the democratic (in it most pure form) and republican process?

First of all, a democracy is not necessarily the best system. A democracy is the governing of the majority, and therefore the democracy is only as good as that democracy is. And what is the average level of intelligence and education in many countries? What is the level of compromise with environment, future generations, etc.?

In my opinion, and given the average intelligence of citizens and their poor education, in the current situation a dictatorship would be much better if the dictator is a good and skillful enough person. A dictatorship has many advantages for the long term decissions, which the democratic governments don't have. Environmental pollution, taxes, subsidies, public debt, economy, and many other relevant questions are run best when you do not depend on virtually irresponsable voters and politicians who only do care about today, as if there was no tomorrow. The problem with dictatorships in history so far is that the dictators have been disgusting persons, like Hitler, Stalin, Franco, Castro etc. (To only name the most recent ones), but I f.e. would prefer a dictatorship directed by Emmanuel Kant instead of a democracy governed by Berlusconi :doh:. In any case, one must admit that it is way easier to find a good person to be dictator than several millions of intelligent voters who will choose well :shifty:

Second, and if we need to accept democracy because the dictatorship system has also its problems (The main one being who chooses the dictator), then at least we need a real democracy, and not a partitocracy. To be really effective, a democracy can't rely on locked lists and a monopoly of political parties. It also can't work on a national basis. Men as social groups work better in small units where everyone knows well the other, so a democracy must run from a very low level to the higher one. Ther must also be a better system of demanding responsability from politicians. For example, here in Valencia the regional president is currently investigated for corruption, and he has shamelessly presented the european elections as a referendum of confidence in him. What kind of democracy is that? Nobody should ever pretend to claim that voters can absolve him from any legal or even political offence, that is simply sick! :nope:

The current system, at least in Spain, is plain and simply an oligarchy of political parties which is shamelessly run by them in a continuous expansion of their tentacles to everything they can: The courts, the army, the trade unions...

Such dirt is nowhere close to a real democracy, and hence I do not by any means want to participate on it. I accept and obey it because the current legal system is that one, but I do not in any way concur personally to it, nor do I want that my forced vote could be considered a suppport of the system.

The right not to vote is the right to critize the system by legal and pacific means, and I demand it to be respected.

Skybird

06-14-09, 01:44 PM

Respenus

06-14-09, 02:13 PM

A feudal structure seems to be the better solution for large-scale communities, while democracies may function well in small-scale communities. Somehow the two should be combined: feudalism on the national and supernational level, democracy on the local level.

You made my day with this statement Skybird. Thank you. Now where did I leave my book draft...?

UnderseaLcpl

06-14-09, 03:48 PM

People usually find it hard to identify themselves with a dictatorship/tyranny. Why not a feudal system, a monarchy, with a far greater potential that people could identify themselves with it? the voting process in democracies is not about the competence of the candidates. Indeed it is a highly irrational affair, that has a lot to do with - old habits and traditions in social peer groups. In a just and fair-functioning monarchy, however, the next generation of leader(s) is educated and trained for their later responsibility from childhood on. But like in a democracy, the risk with a monarchy lies in the situation of a monarch having a deficitary character, to put it that way. However, deficitary characters seem to be the rule in democracies. And often we even have incompetent deficitary characters at top levels. Not too mention that the ammount of lobbyism and influence by interest groups makes the independance of politics a dream of the past.

A feudal structure seems to be the better solution for large-scale communities, while democracies may function well in small-scale communities. Somehow the two should be combined: feudalism on the national and supernational level, democracy on the local level.

A political study done some months ago found democracies by tendency to be in global decline, and tyrannies/dictatorships winning ground, btw. It also found the latter often abusing the first to strengthen it's status, a good example is Iraq that formally seems to be a democracy but in fact the Shia president Malikhi is strongly collaborating and taking orders from the Iranian autocracy. and throughout the ME, the more free democratic elections are held, the stronger non-democratic islamists become - and see their anti-democratic and islamic attitude officially be legitimated by democratic elections, which gives them a status of being unavailable for democratic criticism.

I think it is a widespread symptom that democracy is no longer taken serious, but just is instrumentalised for pushing interests that are anything but democratic. And that is true for the West, too.

You worry me when you say things like this, Sky. This is at least the third time I have heard you suggest that a feudal system might be the best way to go, so I can only assume that you are serious.
Intelligent as you are, even you cannot suggest a way that an effective and responsible feudal government could be created other than that democracy and feudalism could be "somehow" combined.

For someone as wary of religion, the collusion of business and state, and irresponsible concentration of power as you seem to be, feudalism should appear to be completely unviable. The potential for catastrophic abuse of power is tremendous, and inevitable at some point, no matter who is chosen as the first monarch. Furthermore, you have stated how influential genes and reproductively-aligned biological proccess can be in affecting a person's judgement (something I agree with, btw, mostly along the lines of Ridley's works), so how can you advocate a system as nepotistic as feudalism?

I think you have fallen prey to the idea of the "philosopher-king" in some form or another, my friend. While it sounds nice, it is completely untenable in the real world.

As always, I offer you what I consider to be a true resolution in the limitation of the power of the state. You need look no further than the U.S. Constitution if you seek a basis for an ideal (as far as that is possible) form of government. There are problems with the Constitution, to be sure. Loopholes and unclear statements do exsist within the document, but it was really the first attempt at such a thing.
A strict Constitution, properly drafted, and ratified by overwhelming majority, can embrace and preserve the goals of a society far longer than any other type of system.
The solution is to base the society upon that document, and vigilantly guard it against any re-interpretation or threat other than overwhelming support for amendment. Naturally, the document must be enforced by popular mandate, so an armed populace is crucial to its' survival.

Pfft! Feudal system, indeed! That is simply tyranny by another name, even more prone to corruption than pure democracy, as it requires the military support of vassals and lords, entities with centralized power, whose loyalty must be bought or bartered for. By seeking pure order, you will only create more chaos. Someone as familiar with human psychology as you should know that.
A Constitutional Republic, with strict limitations upon centralized power, and a representative democratic electorate, is the answer. Through the will of the individual, bounded only legal protections of the rights of all individuals, order can be achieved in a form that is most beneficial for all.

Skybird

06-14-09, 05:46 PM

Letum

06-14-09, 06:00 PM

Revolutionary changes are never a good idea.
If we need to change what we have, we need to do it bit by bit and in such a
way that we can always take a step back. We are feeling our way in the dark.

UnderseaLcpl

06-14-09, 11:56 PM

I judge the democratic model by the resulting state of nations in the present. And the result is not as that I would become enthusiastic. Democracy shows a lethal weakness to lobbyism and forming of "secret" elitarist structures that erode it, and this degenerative process runs the faster the bigger the community is.

I completely agree, but I have never advocated democracy. Democracy is simply tyranny of the masses. The U.S., unlike many democratic governments, was never intended to be a democracy. It was supposed to be a Republic. The President was supposed to be elected by Congress, which was in turn elected by landholding citizens.

There are example of democracy working, but these examples depend on community size not exeeding a certain size, and that size seems to be connected the social perception of the whole by the individual. but the individual can only overlook so and so much, but not more, and it can feel attached to and being part of only so and so much context, and not more. Where this direct, immediate, inter-human interaction mode gets lost in the system size, anonymous abstractions find the opportunity to set it and replace true human-human relations. sub groups form up, having interests defined not by the context of the whole, but the context of the single group only.
You assume that human interaction of a certain type is required or desireable in modern society. I agree to some extent, but someone as familiar with the biological peculiarities of the human psyche should know that the nature of the interaction is not nearly as important as how it is percieved. People interact on this forum across thousands of miles and time zones, despite cultural differences, because it a rewarding social interaction.
As for the desireability of traditional interaction, there is certainly something to be said for it, but it is anathema to any kind of viable economy, unless we were to be content to live in huts in a village.
The market does not require face to face interaction to benefit all. The person who makes a nice pair of boots for me does not need to know me to do so, he does it for his own benefit, and I do not buy them to support him, I buy them for my own benefit. In that way, the market brings people together in pursuit of mutual benefit across all sorts of barriers.
It is true that sub-groups form, but that is why the state cannot be allowed much power. It has a tendency to cater to such groups if it is able to do so. The state must be walled off from the marketplace where we all interact as much as possible, lest some take advantage of it.

Couple this with an economic dieology that bases on maximum selfishness and egoism, and attitude of having the right to seek one's own advanatge at the cost of the whole.

Maximum selfishness and egoism are a base part of human nature. As a social species, some behaviors of that nature are confused with altruism, but the truth is that people are selfish. For the most part, they cannot be otherwise. They are programmed to be so by their very selfish genes. It takes a good deal of introspection and effort to defeat that programming, and even then it retains some influence.
Where I feel you continually "miss the forest for the trees", so to speak, is in your attitude towards the market, which harnesses those selfish drives for the good of all. In its' most perfect form, the market requires that one provide a good or service of value to another in order to benefit oneself.
I realize that the equation is more complex than that, as one must take into account the fact that the market serves the wise better than it serves the foolish, but it also makes wise men out of fools. Even the most banal idiot on the face of the planet can only be fooled so many times before they change their behaviour.

The result is a very self-destructive society - the societies we have today in the West. they are oligarchies and a tyranny of lobbies that are democratic only by label, but not by content and meaning.

No.....the result is a society that continually moves onwards and upwards, overcoming all obstacles. For all the problems with modern forms of democracy and the market, it cannot be argued that humanity has not progressed by leaps and bounds since the beginning of the modern era of trade and democracy. Even when one considers the tremendous cost paid in lives and material because of wars perpetuated by states as they make the painful transition,there are still mroe people, with a better standard of living, than there has ever been before, and the trend continues.

I mean modern democracy fostered a form of capitlaism that threatens to put mankind on the list of endangered species. How could one claim that to be a successful model? That is only true if one subscribes to the idea that man is destroying the planet that provides fuel for a market economy. I, for one, believe that this is your strongest argument. It is very true that humanity has a voracious appetite for resources, and that this drive for exploitation hurts other species, and may end up hurting us as well.
My solution is, as you are well aware by now, to press onward and rely on the technological innovations of the free market to solve these problems. Private industry has a history of success in this area, when it is permitted to function. Where there are not enough crops, it revolutionizes agriculture. Where there are not enough materials, it finds more or develops alternatives. It must do so or it will die. It is driven by greed, but it must provide for its' customers to fuel that greed. It innovates where innovation is needed, and it conserves as much as possible to save on costs.
To be fair, the market does do damage to the environment, a lot of damage. But humanity, and all living beings damage the environment. Any species, if it is successful enough, will destroy its' own ecosystem. That's just how nature works. As humans, we have the unique capacity to overcome that deficiency, and have done so in the past(via the market, and free political systems) on many occassions. If you could provide at least a vague outline of a viable system other than free trade where we could overcome our tendency to exploit the environment, I would carefully consider it, but you never do. All you ever say is that things need to be changed, without providing any kind of acceptable system.
One thing is for sure; Feudalism is not a way to limit harm to the environment. Centralization in general is not a way to limit such harm. The countries with the worst environments, the ones where resources are exploited the most and where the earth is the most abused, are poor countries with centralist power structures.
Poor countries cannot afford the luxury of contemplating what harm is being done to the Earth, they are too busy just trying to survive. Imo, we need a society that is made rich by trade, and emancipated by the decentralization of power, to enable inherently selfish people to take some time to think about the environment and have time to restore it.

We need to find an alternative. Make better proposals than the "draft" I offered. I tried to combine democracy and feudalism without making one of them purely representative only, making the valdiity of both depending on the level of the social orgnaisation level: democracy in independant local regions small enough that it can function as intended, a somewhat feudal structure on national level to coordinate their interaction. In that model, both depend on the other as long as both agree to keep a national identity together.
And I am interested in the idea. I have been running it through my head for a few hours now and trying to develop a way in which it might work. I doubt I will come up with anything soon, but I will consider it in the days to come. Perhaps you are on to something, but I don't see anything viable yet. I keep coming back to the same conclusion; who can be trusted with the power a monarch is capable of wielding? How do we ensure that such power does not fall into the wrong hands?
It takes many lifetimes of effort to build a prosperous society. It only takes one fool to tear it down, if he is given the means to do so.

I will continue to consider it, however.

Offer something better, I don'T say my quick draft is already perfect, it is just a general hint at one direction. Just don't tell me that there is nothing better than democracy or ultra-laissez-faire for the market - it kills us in multiple ways. It destroys us and the basis of our life, in materialistic and comfortable ways, but nevertheless it destroys us. That simple. - The weak state of yours is a too weak an idea as if it could convince me.

I did read this paragraph before I began typing this response, but the truth is that I have nothing else to offer you, Sky. I have been a resident of many sectors of the political spectrum at various times in my life and based upon those experiences, I have settled on the Libertarian perspective.
I am not sure that it was a wise decision, which is why I continually challenge the views of yourself and others, that I might gain some insight that changes my perspective for the better. Thus far, my perspective has only been changed a little, not enough for me to abandon my general stance. I see the same thing over and over again; that things should be different or made better, but no one has any kind of realistic way to realize that aim.

In truth, Sky, I think that you are a victim of the same selfish short-sightedness that you regularly accuse the rest of humanity of being guilty of. You may think you want a system that is better for the species and the Earth as a whole, but what you really mean is that you want your system and ideals to be the standard.
I may be wrong about that, and I do not mean to be offensive, but I came to the realization that I desired such things some time ago. That is part of the reason why I adopted the positions I support now. Consider it, at least.

Skybird

06-15-09, 08:52 AM

Hi, Lance, need a read? I've got a little thing for you... :D

1/2

I completely agree, but I have never advocated democracy. Democracy is simply tyranny of the masses. The U.S., unlike many democratic governments, was never intended to be a democracy. It was supposed to be a Republic. The President was supposed to be elected by Congress, which was in turn elected by landholding citizens.

Okay, I take it - since it is said so often by conservative Americans - that the United States are not democratic, and the claim to be the great messiah of democracy is only posturing.

:hmmm:

You assume that human interaction of a certain type is required or desireable in modern society. I agree to some extent, but someone as familiar with the biological peculiarities of the human psyche should know that the nature of the interaction is not nearly as important as how it is percieved. People interact on this forum across thousands of miles and time zones, despite cultural differences, because it a rewarding social interaction.

It is a totally new, because it is non-direct/unpersonal/non-vis-a-vis form of social interaction, even less "binding" than a letter that takes more effort and time and care to write. The whole web is likem this, and it'S ontent is extremely fluid, and temporary, unsubstantial. It is a revolution in thinking, and a cultural revolution maybe even greater than the invention of book printing. And it causes massive psychological as well as social changes. And it seems: also many problems.

As for the desireability of traditional interaction, there is certainly something to be said for it, but it is anathema to any kind of viable economy, unless we were to be content to live in huts in a village.

The market does not require face to face interaction to benefit all. The person who makes a nice pair of boots for me does not need to know me to do so, he does it for his own benefit, and I do not buy them to support him, I buy them for my own benefit. In that way, the market brings people together in pursuit of mutual benefit across all sorts of barriers.

It is true that sub-groups form, but that is why the state cannot be allowed much power. It has a tendency to cater to such groups if it is able to do so. The state must be walled off from the marketplace where we all interact as much as possible, lest some take advantage of it.

Either you have misunderstood something or I explained something in a misleading way, since you put so much attention on existence or absence of face-to-face communication. I wonder what all this has to do with your criticism and my explanation of my argument that we need to change our communal system, since the current system fails to give us the needed reaction space and speed to sail off the high waves to come.

Maximum selfishness and egoism are a base part of human nature. As a social species, some behaviors of that nature are confused with altruism, but the truth is that people are selfish. For the most part, they cannot be otherwise. They are programmed to be so by their very selfish genes. It takes a good deal of introspection and effort to defeat that programming, and even then it retains some influence.

That is true, but it is also true that scientists started to conclude that a certain ammount of social behavior also is genetically transported, since it improves the chance of survival and reduces inner tensions of the tribe, herd, social group the individual ape is living in. This is concluded from research being done on chimps, I mentioned it in earlier threads. It started with the observation that chimps show altruistic behavior.

You also ignore that although man is genetically programmed, he has the ability, due to his mind, to go beyond that original programming, even act in violation of it. We do it all the time, to varying degrees. If we wouldn't, we would end in jail this very day. Nor wuld there have been true wise man and "saints." Self-sacrifce. Selflessly coming to the help of others. No waste of time like creating a piece of art. No letting go of the loved one, for he/she loves somebody else. No intentional starving oneself to death in protest. Etc. Etc. Etc.

But you are right that we also are often controlled by genes in our behavior and not realise it or do not want to know it. That is specially true in our extremely complex games we play in our mating behavior. When it comes to sex, then... :lol:

Nevertheless. Do not compare genes and human beings directly. It does not work. That is a bit like comparing a heap of metal ore and a bundle of plastic and wires with a manufactured Ferrari. Or like comparing a nut with a forest.

Where I feel you continually "miss the forest for the trees", so to speak, is in your attitude towards the market, which harnesses those selfish drives for the good of all. In its' most perfect form, the market requires that one provide a good or service of value to another in order to benefit oneself.

Oh, I perfectly understand your reasoning behind it, it's just that I do not buy it. You again propagate here, and in the paragraphs before, a society of isolated individualists that shall have the right to act egoistically and push their intertests at all costs, unregulated, even at the cost of the others. The market regulates it all, you say. But what you do not want to see is that man nevertheless is a social animal, like it or not, and that you defend a total anarchy in which economical oligarchs are allowed to form up and dominate the weaker by their monopoles that you see no reason at all to prevent and assume to be taken care of by the market (that is absurd since the market left to itself establishes monopoles). You assume that just leaving human egoism to itself would level out over the whole social system or culture, where in fact it means an unregulated fight between everybody, with bigger fishes becoming bigger and smaller being eaten until only some monopolists are left that have the power to impose their conditions and rules, dicated by their egoist interest, onto the others. and that my friend is anarchy par excellence. the law of the jungle. the survival of the fittest. The economic variation of Social-Darwinism at its best. Maybe that is fine with animals in the jungle. but we are self-aware, fairly intelligent on the individual level, unescapably social human beings. and it raises my eyebrows to hear how easily you are willing to leave behind those that are not given by nature the strengths to compete in that monopolistic environment that is to form up. Those that became ill, or had an accident, simply are weaker than others but not by their own fault. Weak and lazy, being depending and being a parasyte, ate two different things.

You're strange. Even more, you criticise me when mentioning a "feudal structure" above, but you do not care for feudal-by-functionality structures already being established in form of economic monopolists and lobby groups and political family dynasties and established, crusted structures that already are beyond any countercontrol or need not to legitmise themselves to the public, and that nevertheless project an enormous ammount of power and influence that makes mockery of your claim that "the market regulates itself" You completely ignore that these things boosted the developement that led to the current banking crisis - I do not buy your excuse that it was not the system, but too much state control. the market was given the freedom - that just allowed these perversions taking place.

I realize that the equation is more complex than that, as one must take into account the fact that the market serves the wise better than it serves the foolish, but it also makes wise men out of fools. Even the most banal idiot on the face of the planet can only be fooled so many times before they change their behaviour.

As I said before, the way you want it to have, opens the lane to the tyranny of monopolists, since that is what capitalism is about: getting rid of rivals, preventing competition and winning a monopole that allows to go after maximum exploitation, and the less regulation there is to prevent that, the faster it goes into that direction. Under this circumstances it is totally illusive that the generation of starters that enter the race at a later point of time, would do so under conditions of equal chances - they face established power structures that aim at denying equality of chances, and the older these old bulls are, the more such power they have.

No.....the result is a society that continually moves onwards and upwards, overcoming all obstacles. For all the problems with modern forms of democracy and the market, it cannot be argued that humanity has not progressed by leaps and bounds since the beginning of the modern era of trade and democracy. Even when one considers the tremendous cost paid in lives and material because of wars perpetuated by states as they make the painful transition,there are still mroe people, with a better standard of living, than there has ever been before, and the trend continues.

As I said in a posting above, what you hail as the big victory of material comfort, destroys us. Even more so when assuming that the rest of mankind would live by the same materialistic living conditions like the few happy people in the rich western nations. Could you imagine what it means for the planet, if our rate of consuming energy, our rate of people owning cars, our rate of consuming resources and goods, our rateof wasting, would be reached by the remaining 5.5 billion people on the planet? You should think about that, and please do not imagine that just some technical innovations would solve the problem. If the situation would become as that all 6.5 billion (growing!) people would live in the same material way like we lucky 800 million, it would mean a cataclysm destroying the biosphere and the regenerative potential of the planet to a degree where it can no longer support higher forms of life. We see a widening of such a destruction already now, with just us 800 million doing the damage. Multiply it by a factor 8 for the present, and have a happy suicide party. - It took just us 800 millionto bring us to where we are - and that was already enough to make the situation is grim, really grim.

More of the ways that we already have? We can pack our things and leave from the stage, then.

That is only true if one subscribes to the idea that man is destroying the planet that provides fuel for a market economy. I, for one, believe that this is your strongest argument. It is very true that humanity has a voracious appetite for resources, and that this drive for exploitation hurts other species, and may end up hurting us as well.
My solution is, as you are well aware by now, to press onward and rely on the technological innovations of the free market to solve these problems. Private industry has a history of success in this area, when it is permitted to function. Where there are not enough crops, it revolutionizes agriculture. Where there are not enough materials, it finds more or develops alternatives. It must do so or it will die. It is driven by greed, but it must provide for its' customers to fuel that greed. It innovates where innovation is needed, and it conserves as much as possible to save on costs.

honestly said, you sound so thoughtless and unprepared here that I think you simply have not even an almost realistic idea of the ammount of problems man has already caused. I could talk about certain precious key ores that have become so rare that we fuel civil wars in africa just to get them for our hightech and military industry. I could talk about the biological collapse in the oceans, and the change of the energetic dynamics in currents due to the changing balances in salt and sweet water, and the effect on climate. I could talk about the desastrous loss of farmland, the exploding desertification, the falling of the ground water levels, and the complex damages being done by overfertilizing the shrinking ammounts of agricultural lands that are left. I could talk about the atmosphere, and the thawing of the methane-saturated permafrost areas. I could talk about the enormous risk we accepted by having reduced the former several dozens of thousands variations of grain to just a few hundreds, and the existential risk of maintaining too many monocultures. I could talk about the shrinking ammounts of food produced, and the growing ammount of agriculture focussing on energy production. I could talk about the dying of plancton and certain algas and the loss of woods and how that affectes the atmosphere, and the return of the dominance of yellyfish in the oceans and regular fishes dying out and the spreading of other algas intoxicating the ocean and doing damage to instead of helping the atmopshere, and damaging the remaining higher life in the seas - and finally on land, too, since the loss of maritime life directly impacts on land-based life, too, just with a time delay. I can talk about the disappearing of oil and the economic turmoils it causes even decades before the last barrel of oil will be sold.

Not too mention the drama of human mass dying due to stravations, illness and natural desaster, and epic migration movements as a result of people fleeing from the pleagues.

As long as this underestimation of these fundamental changes (often: collapses) is present, there is no real sense in continuing to debate over this - and that may be the reason why conservatives and classic economic hardliners fight so bitterly against seeing the environmental collapse taking place, and invest hundreds of millions per year in huge campaigns to hide it from the public and to bring established research on these issues into doubt so that people shall reject it: a problem not admitted is a problem that cannot interfere with one's own shorttermed profit interests - the bill hopefully needs to be payed not before one has had one's party and then has bitten the dust.

It is said to be a typical and very sympathetic - although maybe stereotyped - American quality: optimism, "not talking long, but getting something done". But this coin has two medals. It leads to the observation that people prefer to mess up things and repairing them, instead of preventing them from breaking, and although optimism boosts one's energy in situations, it also carries one away and makes one falling for unrealistic assumptions on how easy and bright and managable things will be. the truth however is that we have caused consequences on this planet that I see us being completely unable to "manage". Or as the saying goes: "pessimist" is the optimist's decription of a realist.

To be fair, the market does do damage to the environment, a lot of damage. But humanity, and all living beings damage the environment. Any species, if it is successful enough, will destroy its' own ecosystem. That's just how nature works. As humans, we have the unique capacity to overcome that deficiency, and have done so in the past(via the market, and free political systems) on many occassions.

Man, is there something in the world you do not think of as having been founded, fostered and turned for the better by "the market"? I start to think about it in terms of obessions and fixiations. :D

If you could provide at least a vague outline of a viable system other than free trade where we could overcome our tendency to exploit the environment, I would carefully consider it, but you never do. All you ever say is that things need to be changed, without providing any kind of acceptable system.

Am I the omni-potent, all-knowing messiah? I do not know for sure what we must do and what me must turn to, but I know for sure that more of what we already have had, will just seal our doom. And that is perfectly legitimate to make a statement, then. I just have drawn a simple draft for an idea how I think it could eventually be turned if we still have the time left, and earlier you just attacked it for being what it is, "feudalism", not giving argument for it, but just referring to your holy grail, the ungoverned market. I know that it is a very anglosaxon hobby, to turn the idea of the unregulated market into almost a religion, it is not by chnace that it were anglosaxon economists pushing the idea in the main - but I still do not buy it in the extremist form you outline. To me you propagate open anarchy and open monopolism, and nothing else than this. And both are not acceptable to me, for the sake of the higher interest and for the sake of those having come into this world a bit weaker in strength and more limited in chances and both not being their fault.

Skybird

06-15-09, 08:52 AM

2/2

One thing is for sure; Feudalism is not a way to limit harm to the environment. Centralization in general is not a way to limit such harm. The countries with the worst environments, the ones where resources are exploited the most and where the earth is the most abused, are poor countries with centralist power structures.
Poor countries cannot afford the luxury of contemplating what harm is being done to the Earth, they are too busy just trying to survive. Imo, we need a society that is made rich by trade, and emancipated by the decentralization of power, to enable inherently selfish people to take some time to think about the environment and have time to restore it...

... just that you propagate ways that unavoidably will foster a predatory monopolism - and actually do so since long - that will always hinder a fair balance in the distribution of wealth and will always hinder equality of chances and market access, not to mention that the more parts of mankind share the Western way of living, the more suicidal it becomes for all of us on planet earth.

Feudalism does nothing in itself to heal the environemt, that is correct. Democracy also does not do that. But the current economic system we have, also does not really help in it, and still causes more obstacles than assistances to the needed reorientations and speed. It is about establishing an order that allows us the needed reaction space again, and the needed reaction speed, to adress these problems before the time window closes for us - that is what it is about. the current western system stalls in these regards, and is unsuited to acchieve that. The current established order allows far too much delay, and intended delay, in fact it even has caused stallings of most dedicated intentions to adress the problems, and the current order also is extremely vulnerable and gets massively abused by economic lobbies that try to prevent very change itself, and try to prevent change taking place at the needed speed, for the sake of their shorttermed interests. To overcome this lethal hijacking, this deadlock - this is what my idea is about. It must get broken, no matter how, no matter the cost. - Damn I sound like Obama :) with all this changing, but I think he and me aim at totally different directions nevertheless.

And I dare say that we probably need to enforce change against the will of the majority of mankind, which means there must be a leading, strong authority equipped with tools of such power. That is an enormous risk. but we also have such powers today, who are abusing their might without scrupels, politically and economically. They derive from both Western and non-Western political traditions, and derive from the market economy as well as state-run economies.

Just imagine the need to enforce tight rules for strict birth control around the globe - that project alone will be a hot dance! From the confrontation with religions, over local riots in African villages, to mass hysteria spread by western ideologic politicians and human rights activists... Boy, that will be a party, I tell you, bring three pairs of dancing shoes in reserve! At the same time evading the mistake of the Chinese and not allowing over-aging of the population, while allowing the global population thinning out naturally, by several factors (as long as you are not willing to use force to kill some 5 billion people with active weapons).

the problem is still the same that was there when monarchies, or even the Greek tyrants, were ruling, and that has been the same problem in democracies as well: How to make sure that the strong authority at the top does not abuse its power for selfish intentions, but uses it to acchieve what is best for the whole and preserves the very natural basis of our survival, while balancing this against the demand of the one to be allowed as much freedom as possible and be given a fair perspective to found his existence in the system without being totally subjugated to the interest of the state like in totalitarian regimes?

Meeting two criterions is needed for such high ranking leaders: competence on the matters of politics, intercultural sociology, ecology and economy (etc. etc), and a character and mind and inner attitude that is immune to the temptations of abusing power for selfish goals and egoism, and a strong sense and dedication to serving the higher interest.

I think that already sorts out almost everybody volunteering for such an office. people craving for power and attention very often are not well-suited for being given power and attention. - Western democracy as well as tyrants in banana-republics tell tales of this.

In a feudal system, where you eventually have a social class of "noble men", in ideal circumstances the young ones are prepared for their later position from childhood on, since it is certain that as noble men they will climb to ranks and authority. This affects education and forming of the character alike. Foul characters eventually get sorted out by their families. Remember, I talk of "ideal conditions", in other words, an utopia.

Obviously, there is a risk, that is the one coming to power may or may not be competent, but may be of foul charcter for sure. then the rest of the society is screwed.

Democracy tried to cure this. It says that the key personnel gets exchanged every once in a while, that sorts out the rotten tomatoes sooner or later, but only at the price of allowing them to come back, and kicking good men as well. But this procedure does nothing to ensure that those being elected, are either competent, or are of good character, or both. Wether they get elected or not depends on their connections to the media outlets, and there ability to produce themselves and talk their audience into voting them. Competence and charcter can but must not have somethign to do with it. and often, they go amiss indeed. The same problem like in monarchies! A monarchy is fine and well as long as you have a good king. Democracy is nice and well as long as voters elect good people - which has a precondtion that good people are available. But if not, then you are screwed again.

In a democracy one would think "okay, the bad guy gets elected out of office next time". Hm, Berlusconi on my mind, and many others, or politicians falling the ladder upwards after having been kicked, and going to the EU, for example, fishing for some fatter pensions. Political parties in all Western nations have put their own power interests above the interests of their nations and their people. They are heavily allied and intermixed with economical lobbies and oligarchic structures representing the owners of economic production capacities which they can use to blackmail political decision making. And from this unhealthy mixture, the choices for the voters get formed up. In other words the voter has the choice between pleague and cholera, and necessarily votes for people spending their lifes with being politics, and showing plenty of egoism, narcissim, craving for power, and cannot imagine that people may want them to step aside and vote them out of their polticial career. in case of that, they tend to evade into other political offices, to save their pensions or even earn raises.

Democracy...?

I argued before, in earlier postings, that I think democracy only works in communities small enough that a certain ammount of personal vis-a-vis contact amongst most mebers of the community is assured, so that people do not feel responsible towards anonymous entities only, but to living people maybe they know since their childhood. Beyond this, it all becomes a thing of hear-say, unfounded belief that may find justification or not, good wishes, and hopes for the best. that's why I say I see demcoracy being equipped to work in small communities only. Or on the local level. The market, for the moment, has nothing to do with it.

So there you are, with a country of some hundred local independant democracies (or local communities in general, whos say they all want to be democratic?), or less, whatever. they may be formed on levels of small towns and small rural districts. the commmunity sizes need to make a compromise between the desired small size, and the desired small (managable) number of communities in such a nation. Huge cities and metropoles are already a problem in this model, of course.

Maybe different in scale, you already have varying incarnations of such sub-structures in several states of the present. The difference lies in the superstructure supervising them and keeping them together.

You obviously need some kind of supervising structure that coordinates the interaction between these many entities. However, you do want to avoid this structure to be vulnerable to the traps that make huge monarchies and huge democracies fail: selfishness, bad character, etc. Obviously, this higher coordination structure can not be open to democratic elections then, since it is representing a too huge community (the reason why we have limited democracies to small local communities, right?). the only alternative I see is to have a self-preserving group of persons that are dependant and independant at the same time in governing the interaction between the many sub-communities, and define the action-orientation of the whole. You need to find a method that the communities usually must follow these superior orders, but - under circumstances to be defined - have the right to refuse to obey - which then compares to a mutiny against the captain on a ship, maybe. usually, the captain's orders get followed most of the time. but he always lives with the risk that the crew rebels.

One could compare to federal states like Germany or the US. There are towns, distrits, higher districts, federal states, and the nation. Above all the federal government. the porblem is the federal government, I'm sure - though from a very different perspective - you agree. I go even further and say the givenrment of federal states, higher districts, districts and metropoles already are part of the problem too. any organisation level that includes millions and millions of citizens is a problem.

If you can figure out how to establish a tradition for a "noble class", that does not claim rights by birth only and does not understand that to be an invitation for privileges without responsibilities only, but understand their membership to this class as an obligation to serve, like a doctor pledges his oath, then you would have advanced one step. Of course you can also try to establish such an attitude of mind in the wide public of a given democracy and then let people vote amongst such candidates, but the difference is - and it is important - that in a democracy the right guy being elected, can be elected out of office soon again, which means he is prevented from certainty about the ammount of time he will be given, so that it is unlikely he will succeed with projects of longtermed perspective. the same guy as part of a feudalistic class that stays and cannot be elected in and out, has much more time available to plan from longterm strategies and order them to be followed.

this sounds profane, but might be of the essence, due to the situation we are in. Our current decision processes are far too slow (taking years, planning for implementation of climate agendas over decades, for example, and then only with minimum goals to be acchcieved), and they are far too open and too vulnerable to lobby groups, interest groups, unlegitimised interests, and generally are carried by personnel and poltiicians whose porimary concern most often is their own career.

To put it plain and simple: we need to get people moving their lazy a$$es, leaders and people alike. We need to make plenty of miles in no time in order to make up with the drastic changes we have started on this planet. that is what it all is about: becoming fast in adaptation. VERY fast. I mean: so fast that the speed makes you dizzy. And from here my argument builds that the old structures simply cannot support that speed, for a plethora of reasons, many of which lie in the realm of individual human deficits. Somehow we need to drastically reduce this human variable's repercussion. Also, this needed speed is anti-natural for human evolution, and thus will raise friction as well as intended opposition. It must be made sure that one has the needed power to break this opposition even by force, if needed. I cannot and will not rule out the use of force, yes. To use as little force as necessary, is desirable - but it is not a priority. nor is respecting any of the old ideals and values a priority - priority is to achieve what I try to outline here - speeding up our adaptation process, at all costs. If we fail on this, anything else will be in vain. speeding up decision making processes and reducing possible options to resist to them, is no self-prupose,. but part of that necessity: speeding up adaptation.

I am very sure that for the same reason sooner or later mankind will start (if given the time) to genetically "enhance" itself with traits and abilities that originally have not been part of our design. This is nothing else than a massive acceleration of biologic evolution, then. I may like that or not, but that is how it will go. It will be done, independant from official legal positions.

Under ideal circumstances, a noble class must not be something bad. Originally the term meant a social class that was independant from material work (admitted, at the cost os the slave farmer working for them), so that it had the time to care for other issues (like wars, said to be a widespread hobby of ancient times),or occupations of sometimes more sometimes less idealistic value, like arts, philosophy. this dealing with "finer arts" idealistically made the noble men "noble", compared to the farmer, who had his head in farm work all day long and in the evening fell into the bed, too tired and exhausted to care for these cultural things. for the same reason, so many social rebellions have been started or have been forethought not by workers in the factories, but intellectuals of higher social class who were more or less independant, had their living payed by others (Marx for example, which is reflected in his ideology to quite some degree - he was a precise observer and critic, but a lousy visionary since he never learned how to realistically manage resources, and that money he wants to spend needs to be earned first - that is still a fault in left thinking, which is not so much about earning, but about redistributing). In ancient Greece, cities allowed their philosophers not to participate in the ordinary work, and gave them an income, so that they had the time to spend their time with arts and philosophy instead. Seen that way, they were an early form of "noble men", too.

A feudal class that is for the most independant, and by tradition and education is trained for certain key posts in the higher, super-local adminstration from childhood on, would have the possibility to direct policies that allow to pay more attention to adressing urgent problems of the present world, unmanipulated by the economy or voters' pressure, where the western democratic order and the UN still wastes years and decades, and accievements of one legislation periods maybe get sacrificed in the last year in order to win the campaign by bribing the voters with tax presents (that's how it currently goes in Germany). It is to be considered, though, if such a noble class should be limited in the rights to own possessions and wealth, to make sure it has no chance to give in to the temptation to interfere with the economies in local communities for egoist reasons of greed and craving for gold. On the other hand they must be so independant, materiallistically and financially, that they can a.) live by it safely, and b.) are for the most immune to the temptations of wanting more. But if you allow directors and chief managers dozens of millions of income, if there policy pleases the shareholders, and by that - as you claim - serve the communal interest, then you can hardly criticise to equip my dear little noble men with some wealth for the mentioned reasons, on generally a lower financial basis than the supergreedy bosses of today.

This is only a draft, I know, and I also know the idea is neither original, nor perfect. but it is not just a falling back to the feudal systems of the past, and tries to establish a mutual dependance between the local regions and the national and supernational feudal superstructures. It is not so totally different to the modern state of the world as one may think when hearing "feudalism". a lot of feudal behavior and power already is present in today's system - only that it is allowed to act as it pleases, while I want to put it into a purporsefil harness for the higher interest of all. I think it is absolutely necessary that economy focusses back on the local regions, to save the energy it takes to shuttle goods and items around that are availabe at their target destination anyway, and reducing consummation of resources, and generally create a culture of far greater modesty . "Back to the region" and "Small is beautiful" are no new demands, but have already been raised by economists like Leopold Kohr or E.F. Schumacher since the fifties. Kohr himself for example spoke not so much of the underdeveloped nations in the third world, but the overdeveloped nations in the first world. And I think since 20 years now that he hit the nail on top by that. And in the very early 60s, the European Economy Community's president Margolin launched an EEC offensive that tried to convince it's member states to reform their inner structure and to organise them into substructures of 3-4 million people only, arguing that national states are too huge to handle them effectively on the economic and administrative level. Remarkable, isn't it!? The dispute between conservative theoretist and pragmatists seeing the nation not working well in reality, was causing high waves back then, for some time. You see, back then the European project was very differently oriented than it is today. It was not perfect, but I would have much greater sympathy with it than with the damn ideologic ursupator of brainless power the EU of the present is. That attempt back then, 1961-62, to localise Europe in the regions instead of the nations, is almost the total opposite of what they try to enforce against the will of the people today.

Our industrial and materialistic overdevelopement is what is destroying our civilisation, not just idealistically, but very physically and envrionmentally. We cannot allow all 6.5 billion people sharing our living conditions in the West, that would seal our doom, and in no way planetary ressources can support that, nor can the environment handle the resulting pollution, that is absolutely impossible. And that means we in the West have to give up - massively. And rising industrial nations must very substantially not push as far as we did. Our egoism, that you hail so very much, stands in our way, of course. Another reason why you can't be right when saying egoism will get us out of the mess (and that is what you are essentially saying, no matter how you turn words).

I did read this paragraph before I began typing this response, but the truth is that I have nothing else to offer you, Sky. I have been a resident of many sectors of the political spectrum at various times in my life and based upon those experiences, I have settled on the Libertarian perspective.

After several longer talks we have had, I have realised that myself already, Lance. That's why it is not possible that we come together. Your camp and my camp will battle it out in reality, and the stronger one will overcome the weaker one. Who is who and whether the winner necessarily is right or will just end up in free fall after his "victory", we will see. But as I see it, a substantial compromise worth that name between your and my views is not possible for any of us without giving up most vital key elements of our thinking. That's why our crowd leaders need to battle it out. If we win it, we all eventually will be lost nevertheless, but maybe also see a chance, a final window, to escape total loss of human heritage in the globe's history. If you guys win, we all will be lost for sure. That's mankind's status as I see it.

You see, I can eventually image that in the regions, not all communities necessarily are democracies. Socialist communities also have greater chances to function as intended, if the community size is smaller. I can imagine Kibuzzims as well as for example communities like several Spanish agricultural societies that work by almost communist models - and not only manage their business with ecological sustainability, but make black numbers while still sticking to their core business. Things must not always expand, and endlessly grow. Sustainability is so much more important, and that everybody finds a fair place in the whole and can make a satisfying living from being part if it. that is a thousand times more important than this endless progress-fetish of modern times, and unlimited economoc growth. - For you, this must sound like sheer heresy. Democratic, socialist and communist subcommunities coexisting, cooperating and being coordinated by a feudal superstructure? I would like to see your face now. :D Red like a cherry or pale like the moon, I'm sure. :lol:

I am not sure that it was a wise decision, which is why I continually challenge the views of yourself and others, that I might gain some insight that changes my perspective for the better. Thus far, my perspective has only been changed a little, not enough for me to abandon my general stance. I see the same thing over and over again; that things should be different or made better, but no one has any kind of realistic way to realize that aim.

Because it is new territory we need to find, and we have no experiences with and no charts for it. All my idea is a draft only, although one that has formed up over several years, while I read and contemplated over more and more different input. I know it is far from perfect, it is far from being all new and exclusively original, and it is far from being free of risks. But nevertheless tis is my imganition how it maybe could function to move away from the old order, that will destroy us if we stick to it, and maybe we already have passed beyond the point of no return anyway. but still I abandon the old order, because one can know for sure, and even prove it, that 2 plus 2 does not make for a result of 5, or 7. One can claim that and prove it - without necessarily knowing the correct result of 4.

In truth, Sky, I think that you are a victim of the same selfish short-sightedness that you regularly accuse the rest of humanity of being guilty of. You may think you want a system that is better for the species and the Earth as a whole, but what you really mean is that you want your system and ideals to be the standard.

Well, I must admit I think exactly the same about you.

I may be wrong about that, and I do not mean to be offensive, but I came to the realization that I desired such things some time ago. That is part of the reason why I adopted the positions I support now. Consider it, at least.

I have, and I consider it to be guaranteed 100% self-destructive in the outcome, and because I am so certain about it, I reject it so determined. That the path to that outcome may be padded with cushions of temporary luxury and comfort, does not change the outcome. And on that outcome, where you said that species destroy their environment inevitably, I think of opposing examples in biology, and think that you accept that fatalism of yours for most opportunistic shorttermed interests. By that you maybe create a prohecy that you fulfill yourself.

Nichts für ungut, James! We are stubborn opponents on the matter, but not necessarily enemies on the personal level.